Five Reasons Why Babies Should be Baptized...

[Lamb]

I was actually just objecting to the misapplication of that verse in the video.
The point of the speaker was not the point that Jesus was making in the text. Even if we are commanded by God to baptize infants, bad exegesis of that verse does not support it. It was a command by Jesus to carry the Gospel beyond the children of Israel and to all peoples (all nations). The verse neither adds nor subtracts from the argument on baptizing babies. It was silly to choose it as the key verse supporting the doctrine.

The latest video focused on one verse...because it was a 3 minute video. Page 2 of this thread has other verses that apply.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My perspective is that what matters is what the Catholic Church teaches as the teaching of Christ. What others teach contrary to the Catholic Church's teaching is no more important than what Muslims teach.

:smirk:

 

[Josiah]

It does seem to be key doctrine of Lutherans .. I wonder if it was conceeded that infants could be baptized what other doctrine they might have.

1. It's praxis, not doctrine. It is our PRACTICE to not forbid this gift to those under the magical/mysterious/never-disclosed age of X. That's a practice.


2. It's not at all distinctive to Lutherans. ALL denominations more than 450 years old or so practice this. All Orthodox groups, Roman Catholic, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodist and many, many more, perhaps 90% + of all Christians (it was 100% before the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the late 1500's).


3. The practice is complimentary to other orthodox teachings since it is generally believed that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving. While Jesus can accomplish this miracle any way He wants, typically He works through means, so it is not shocking to Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans/Episcopalian, Methodists, Presbyterians and beyond that there would be means used by Jesus in association with the miracle of justification/salvation which Jesus alone performs for us. Lutherans do not believe that justification is a matter of our works for God but rather Christ's works for us.



Thank you.


Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

Scripture cited is the family of Cornelius as proof of infant baptism, John 3:5 as theological reasoning and 1 Peter 2:9 as the result. I can see that as reasurance for the parent in case of infant death but not much in the way of assurance of scripture. I think that may fit in more with the baptism of desire where those who die w/o baptism but have their desires accepted as such (but that would preclude knowledge) or the prayers of the righteous before death occurs as in the case of David's 1st child with Bathsheba.

1. It's praxis, not doctrine. It is our PRACTICE to not forbid this gift to those under the magical/mysterious/never-disclosed age of X. That's a practice.


2. It's not at all distinctive to Lutherans. ALL denominations more than 450 years old or so practice this. All Orthodox groups, Roman Catholic, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodist and many, many more, perhaps 90% + of all Christians (it was 100% before the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the late 1500's).


3. The practice is complimentary to other orthodox teachings since it is generally believed that Jesus is the Savior and that Jesus does the saving. While Jesus can accomplish this miracle any way He wants, typically He works through means, so it is not shocking to Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans/Episcopalian, Methodists, Presbyterians and beyond that there would be means used by Jesus in association with the miracle of justification/salvation which Jesus alone performs for us. Lutherans do not believe that justification is a matter of our works for God but rather Christ's works for us.



Thank you.


Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

Just to be clear that it is a false practise ..... the key verse of Cornelius (that is used as proof of infant baptism) is not about those who DON'T UNDERSTAND. Also this is the key verse of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other one is that of Pentecost. Thru these two cases Christ as the Head of the Body accomplished the baptism of His Body in the Holy Spirit once for all.

ἀκούω
Act 10:44
¶
While Peter G4074 yet G2089 spake G2980 these G5023 words, G4487 the Holy G40 Ghost G4151 fell G1968 on G1909 all G3956 them which HEARD G191 (ἀκούω) the word. G3056

akouō

Pronunciation
ä-kü'-ō (Key)
Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)
A root
Dictionary Aids

Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry

TDNT Reference: 1:216,34
KJV Translation Count — Total: 437x
The KJV translates Strong's G191 in the following manner: hear (418x), hearken (6x), give audience (3x), hearer (2x), miscellaneous (8x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

to hear

to attend to, consider what is or has been said

to understand, perceive the sense of what is said

to hear something

to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence

to get by hearing learn

a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn

to give ear to a teaching or a teacher

to comprehend, to understand

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
ἀκούω akoúō, ak-oo'-o; a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):—give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

 

[Lamb]

2. It's not at all distinctive to Lutherans. ALL denominations more than 450 years old or so practice this. All Orthodox groups, Roman Catholic, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodist and many, many more, perhaps 90% + of all Christians (it was 100% before the Anabaptist movement in Germany in the late 1500's).

This is true! Even John Calvin insisted on infant baptism!

 

[Cassia]

This is true! Even John Calvin insisted on infant baptism!

That's what happens when you follow people rather than God.

 

[Lamb]

Just to be clear that it is a false practise ..... the key verse of Cornelius (that is used as proof of infant baptism) is not about those who DON'T UNDERSTAND. Also this is the key verse of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other one is that of Pentecost. Thru these two cases Christ as the Head of the Body accomplished the baptism of His Body in the Holy Spirit once for all.

There are plenty of baptismal verses on page 2 of this thread I have listed. They all coincide with one another which is what people should look for.

Acts 2:38 promises the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism and Acts 2:39 insists that is for our children.

 

[Josiah]

Just to be clear that it is a false practise .....

So far, we have found the command to Baptize but no one has yet found the verse, "BUT it is forbidden to baptize any under the age of X!"

I think what is without support is the new prohibition invited by the Anabaptists some 450 years ago, forbidding any under the magical, mysterious, never-disclosed age of "X."

And no one yet has produced the verse, "BUT it is forbidden for you to baptize any who has not previously, before that, uttered the Sinner's Prayer and/or appropriately responded to an altar call and/or attained at least the IQ of Y and/or secured enough Christian education."

We are commanded to baptize, teach, love, make disciples...... never is there any restrictions mandated in the Bible prohibiting any group of persons from these mandates. And I disagree with the premise that unless a specific group of persons is stated we are thus forbidden to baptize or teach or love or make disciples of them; I reject the dogmatic premise that unless the Bible specifically states, "and this INCLUDES ______" then it excludes them and we are forbidden to fulfill the mandate to that specific group of people.



.

 

[Cassia]

We need a lalalala plugging ears icon for Lutherans. The fact that a bulldozer is used to plow under anyone's texts against what your saying is a good indication that what you ignor from us is proof that you don't want to understand only be right.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We need a lalalala plugging ears icon for Lutherans. The fact that a bulldozer is used to plow under anyone's texts against what your saying is a good indication that what you ignor from us is proof that you don't want to understand only be right.

:smirk:

*chuckles*

 

[Josiah]

So far, we have found the command to Baptize but no one has yet found the verse, "BUT it is forbidden to baptize any under the age of X!"


I think what is without support is the new prohibition invited by the Anabaptists some 450 years ago, forbidding any under the magical, mysterious, never-disclosed age of "X."


And no one yet has produced the verse, "BUT it is forbidden for you to baptize any who has not previously, before that, uttered the Sinner's Prayer and/or appropriately responded to an altar call and/or attained at least the IQ of Y and/or secured enough Christian education."


We are commanded to baptize, teach, love, make disciples...... never is there any restrictions mandated in the Bible prohibiting any group of persons from these mandates. And I disagree with the premise that unless a specific group of persons is stated we are thus forbidden to baptize or teach or love or make disciples of them; I reject the dogmatic premise that unless the Bible specifically states, "and this INCLUDES ______" then it excludes them and we are forbidden to fulfill the mandate to that specific group of people.



.

We need a lalalala plugging ears icon for Lutherans. The fact that a bulldozer is used to plow under anyone's texts against what your saying is a good indication that what you ignor from us is proof that you don't want to understand only be right.

IMO, the reality that you stress we must follow Scripture but you have no Scripture to support your new prohibition is telling.


You want to proceed by Scripture alone. Okay. Scripture commands that we baptize, teach, love, make disciples. As you've shown, you can't find the verse(s) that states this new prohibition: "BUT thou must not, thou canst not, baptize or teach or love or make disciples any under the age of X!" I feel confident that if such a verse existed to support this new prohibition of this tiny minority of Christians coming out of the Anabaptist movement, you would have quoted it. Therefore, following your rubric, we have no choice but to reject this new prohibition you promote.


And again, this is not a distinctively Lutheran practice. Lutherans are not the only ones to NOT prohibit loving, teaching, baptizing and making disciples based on biological age. NO ONE did until the Anabaptist movement came along some 450 years ago... and today, perhaps 90% plus of Christians do not prohibit such. This includes all Orthodox groups, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics and many, many, many mor4 (it was 100% of Christians for over 1500 years, over 90% for the past 450 years). It's in no way distinctively Lutheran.



- Josiah




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

sola scriptura methods will never give a convincing argument for what is not explicitly stated in scripture. If you have a 66 book bible then proving that God approves and expects infant baptism is going to be such an uphill battle that you will probably never manage it.

 

[Cassia]

Just to be clear that it is a false practise ..... the key verse of Cornelius (that is used as proof of infant baptism) is not about those who DON'T UNDERSTAND. Also this is the key verse of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other one is that of Pentecost. Thru these two cases Christ as the Head of the Body accomplished the baptism of His Body in the Holy Spirit once for all.

ἀκούω
Act 10:44
¶
While Peter G4074 yet G2089 spake G2980 these G5023 words, G4487 the Holy G40 Ghost G4151 fell G1968 on G1909 all G3956 them which HEARD G191 (ἀκούω) the word. G3056

akouō

Pronunciation
ä-kü'-ō (Key)
Part of Speech
verb

Root Word (Etymology)
A root
Dictionary Aids

Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry

TDNT Reference: 1:216,34
KJV Translation Count — Total: 437x
The KJV translates Strong's G191 in the following manner: hear (418x), hearken (6x), give audience (3x), hearer (2x), miscellaneous (8x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf

to hear

to attend to, consider what is or has been said

to understand, perceive the sense of what is said

to hear something

to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence

to get by hearing learn

a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn

to give ear to a teaching or a teacher

to comprehend, to understand

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
ἀκούω akoúō, ak-oo'-o; a primary verb; to hear (in various senses):—give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), (shall) hear(-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

So far, we have found the command to Baptize but no one has yet found the verse, "BUT it is forbidden to baptize any under the age of X!"

I think what is without support is the new prohibition invited by the Anabaptists some 450 years ago, forbidding any under the magical, mysterious, never-disclosed age of "X."

And no one yet has produced the verse, "BUT it is forbidden for you to baptize any who has not previously, before that, uttered the Sinner's Prayer and/or appropriately responded to an altar call and/or attained at least the IQ of Y and/or secured enough Christian education."

We are commanded to baptize, teach, love, make disciples...... never is there any restrictions mandated in the Bible prohibiting any group of persons from these mandates. And I disagree with the premise that unless a specific group of persons is stated we are thus forbidden to baptize or teach or love or make disciples of them; I reject the dogmatic premise that unless the Bible specifically states, "and this INCLUDES ______" then it excludes them and we are forbidden to fulfill the mandate to that specific group of people.



.

Just address the flippin scripture if you want to reply to me. I don't care what else your trying to prove by omission!

 

[Josiah]

sola scriptura methods will never give a convincing argument for what is not explicitly stated in scripture. If you have a 66 book bible then proving that God approves and expects infant baptism is going to be such an uphill battle that you will probably never manage it.

Your persistent misunderstanding of the praxis of Sola Scriptura is astounding......


Sola Scriptura applies to DOGMA; we aren't talking dogma here we're talking about a practice - whether baptizing (like teaching and loving) is a command prohibited to those under the magical age of X. I have never claimed that this practice is specifically commanded in Scripture (OR prohibited), but then it doesn't need to be. We aren't commanded to post on the internet or have books or websites, we are not commanded to use electricity in our churches or have youth groups or women's groups or VBS or children's church in the Bible, we are not commanded to baptize Blacks or Native Americans or Germans in the Bible, we are not commanded to have colleges or parish schools or seminaries in the Bible, we are not commanded to pass around communion as Welch's Grape Juice in tiny plastic cups along with cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread, there at LOTS of things Christians often do that is not specifically commanded in the Bible. This is not a violation of any use of the praxis of norming conflicting dogmas according to the rule of Scripture. I know you know this but you continue nonetheless.....


I have never claimed there is a specific verse that says, "And those under the magical age of X are NOT prohibited from being loved, taught or baptized." I DO think the commands are quite far reaching and in themselves make strict limitations from them problematic. I DO think the Scriptures SUGGEST that no such prohibition(s) exist. And I reject a LOT of the excused given for newly imposing these prohibitions on these biblical commands. But we are here speaking of PRAXIS (not dogma) so we have more a situation where praxis is permitted unless Scripture suggests otherwise (which is why I can post on the internet). And I believe that the "burden of proof" lies generally with those who would prohibit any of these commands (teach, love, baptize, make disciples) based exclusively on biological age and/or previously proclaiming their Christian faith. I'm sure you will disagree and ridicule that. But since accountability is forbidden by the RCC and Catholics, I don't think that's relevant.



Soli DEO Gloria



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

We need a lalalala plugging ears icon for Lutherans. The fact that a bulldozer is used to plow under anyone's texts against what your saying is a good indication that what you ignore from us is proof that you don't want to understand only be right.

The use of "Strong's" and "Vines" is also an attempt to be proven 'right'. It's an appeal to those that have "been there" before us. That would have been a shame to any of the first Anabaptists.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just address the flippin scripture if you want to reply to me. I don't care what else your trying to prove by omission!

Let's see if that happens

 

[Josiah]

So far, we have found the command to Baptize but no one has yet found the verse, "BUT it is forbidden to baptize any under the age of X!"

I think what is without support is the new prohibition invited by the Anabaptists some 450 years ago, forbidding any under the magical, mysterious, never-disclosed age of "X."

And no one yet has produced the verse, "BUT it is forbidden for you to baptize any who has not previously, before that, uttered the Sinner's Prayer and/or appropriately responded to an altar call and/or attained at least the IQ of Y and/or secured enough Christian education."

We are commanded to baptize, teach, love, make disciples...... never is there any restrictions mandated in the Bible prohibiting any group of persons from these mandates. And I disagree with the premise that unless a specific group of persons is stated we are thus forbidden to baptize or teach or love or make disciples of them; I reject the dogmatic premise that unless the Bible specifically states, "and this INCLUDES ______" then it excludes them and we are forbidden to fulfill the mandate to that specific group of people.


.

Just address the flippin scripture if you want to reply to me. I don't care what else your trying to prove by omission!

The "flippin Scripture" (as you call it) that you referenced has nothing to do with supporting the new prohibition you are promoting. Nothing.


You continue to document the omission in Scripture of your prohibition. I'm confident that if you had any verse that prohibits the commands to baptize, teach, love, make disciples based on the recipient not attaining the magical age of X then you would have produced it by now. I don't think you have anything in Scripture to support this new prohibition and I think you know it.



Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

The "flippin Scripture" (as you call it) that you referenced has nothing to do with supporting the new prohibition you are promoting. Nothing.


You continue to document the omission in Scripture of your prohibition. I'm confident that if you had any verse that prohibits the commands to baptize, teach, love, make disciples based on the recipient not attaining the magical age of X then you would have produced it by now. I don't think you have anything in Scripture to support this new prohibition and I think you know it.



Thank you.


- Josiah

lalalala talk to the hand

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

lalalala talk to the hand

Nice.

 

[Josiah]

The "flippin Scripture" (as you call it) that you referenced has nothing to do with supporting the new prohibition you are promoting. Nothing.


You continue to document the omission in Scripture of your prohibition. I'm confident that if you had any verse that prohibits the commands to baptize, teach, love, make disciples based on the recipient not attaining the magical age of X then you would have produced it by now. I don't think you have anything in Scripture to support this new prohibition and I think you know it.



Thank you.


- Josiah


.

lalalala talk to the hand

Friend, you are documenting my point.


Blessings...


- Josiah




.